Re: Unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE

2007-06-14 Thread Alexandre Biancalana
On 6/14/07, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - --On Thursday, June 14, 2007 14:03:27 -0300 Alexandre Biancalana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/14/07, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I don't know ... it was caused by

Re: Unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE

2007-06-14 Thread Marc G. Fournier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - --On Thursday, June 14, 2007 14:03:27 -0300 Alexandre Biancalana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/14/07, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I don't know ... it was caused by an application, but nothing was freed up >> after the app

Re: Unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE

2007-06-14 Thread Alexandre Biancalana
On 6/14/07, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't know ... it was caused by an application, but nothing was freed up after the application was stop'd ... In my case the sockets are closed only if I stop the samba processes. When I just changed the connection mode from Unix Socke

Re: Unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE

2007-06-14 Thread Marc G. Fournier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - --On Wednesday, June 13, 2007 20:15:56 +0200 Ulrich Spoerlein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > was your leak a "kernel leak" or a "user leak" (if it actually makes a > difference). I don't know ... it was caused by an application, but nothing was f

Re: Unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE

2007-06-13 Thread Alexandre Biancalana
On 6/13/07, Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would advise running "truss" or ktrace against the process to see if it's actually attempting to close the descriptor. this would explain if the leak is in the application, or maybe libc/kernel. -- - Alfred Perlstein Hi ! I change n

Re: Unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE

2007-06-13 Thread Alfred Perlstein
* Alexandre Biancalana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070613 12:40] wrote: > On 6/13/07, Ulrich Spoerlein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >Hi, > > > >as you are aware, there is a unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE, > >which AFAIK is not yet fully fixed. &g

Re: Unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE

2007-06-13 Thread Alexandre Biancalana
On 6/13/07, Ulrich Spoerlein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, as you are aware, there is a unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE, which AFAIK is not yet fully fixed. I wanted to ask about the status or some possible fixes, as I know a way to reproduce the problem in a matter of minutes.

Re: Unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE

2007-06-13 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:15:56PM +0200, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote: > I wonder though: maxfilesperproc is roughly 12k, but lsof needs to only > count 2.5k lines of slapd output when the limit is hit. Is there > a better way to check, how much fds/resources are open by a certain process? sockstat is

Re: Unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE

2007-06-13 Thread Ulrich Spoerlein
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > 'k, just to ring in here ... I can definitely attest to there being a leak > here, as it was me that was originally burned by it ... in my case, I > eventually was able to isolate which VPS/jail was causing it and haven't run > it > since, but was never able to determi

Re: Unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE

2007-06-13 Thread Marc G. Fournier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - --On Wednesday, June 13, 2007 09:17:36 -0700 Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've seen this kind of problem with domain sockets (at least on Linux > with a multi-use tool called busybox) where on error conditions the > code never bot

Re Unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE

2007-06-13 Thread Ulrich Spoerlein
On 6/13/07, Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can you perhaps isolate the bug / give more information on it? I'm asking because I'm currently using an application with unix domain sockets in production wich handles lots of connects/disconnects per second and it doesn't seem to show leakage.

Re: Unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE

2007-06-13 Thread Ronald Klop
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:22:45 +0200, Ulrich Spoerlein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, as you are aware, there is a unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE, which AFAIK is not yet fully fixed. I wanted to ask about the status or some possible fixes, as I know a way to reproduce the proble

Re: Unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE

2007-06-13 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 04:22:45PM +0200, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote: > Hi, > > as you are aware, there is a unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE, > which AFAIK is not yet fully fixed. > > I wanted to ask about the status or some possible fixes, as I know a > way to repro

Re: Unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE

2007-06-13 Thread Ivan Voras
Ulrich Spoerlein wrote: Hi, as you are aware, there is a unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE, which AFAIK is not yet fully fixed. We are running Cyrus and Postfix with the user DB in OpenLDAP. When using ldapi://%2fvar%2frun%2fopenldap%2fldapi/ as a connection URL for both Postfix'

Unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE

2007-06-13 Thread Ulrich Spoerlein
Hi, as you are aware, there is a unix domain socket leak in 6-STABLE, which AFAIK is not yet fully fixed. I wanted to ask about the status or some possible fixes, as I know a way to reproduce the problem in a matter of minutes. We are running Cyrus and Postfix with the user DB in OpenLDAP